J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, a revolution began last November 8--a revolution which continues today. The essence of our new revolution is not hard to understand: the American people have decided that the Federal Government has grown so huge and so pervasive that it has displaced our freedoms. Our Government taxes too much, it spends too much, and it regulates too much. And in the process it has become a burden to our personal liberties, to our livelihood, to our markets, and especially to our future generations. Madam Speaker, through our Contract With America, Republicans have promised to do something about this problem. In 50 days we have passed legislation that will redefine the relationship between the Federal Government and the people. The Washington establishment may not like it but the revolution has taken root even in the hallowed Halls of Congress. Over the next 50 days Republicans will complete our contract and keep our promise to deliver real change.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and as I look around this Chamber and think about what has been transpiring in these first 50 days of the Contract With America, I would be remiss if I did not pause to state my very genuine admiration, not only for my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska, but his dynamic duo from Tennessee. In fact, there is a terrific trio, when we think about our good friend, Mr. Hilleary, also serving with this distinction in this Congress. I look here and I see my friend, the gentleman from Washington State, Rick White, here in the Chamber, I am also aware of the fact that there of us in this room are blessed with spouses from the great State of Mississippi, all born down there. It is kind of interesting here, and I look to the Chair, and there is the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], and Madam Speaker, thank you for being here at this late hour, an hour that is still relatively early in my home district, but in a very real sense, for this Nation, Madam Speaker, the hour is growing late. Madam Speaker, let me start with this simple statement. The American people want to hold wrongdoers accountable. No one in this Chamber would disagree with that statement. It is a truism, and certainly, as my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], the former U.S. attorney in Memphis, would point out, it is the basis of our legal system, the notion of accountability. The Common Sense Legal Reform Act restores accountability to product laws. Manufacturers should not be hit with a massive lawsuit because someone deliberately misuses their product. We are bringing an end to the misuse of punitive damages, an aberration in our system that was increasingly used to give plaintiffs a $1 million plus windfall that they could share with their attorneys. However, these changes will have little meaning unless we apply them to the notorious cases that are still wreaking havoc within our legal system. It is here where the outrageous punitive damage awards are making a mockery of justice. Wrongdoers are not being held accountable. What is happening, quite sadly, in my opinion, is that some attorneys are milking the system for every cent they can get. Madam Speaker, to illustrate what I'm taking about, let us focus on the insurance industry for just a moment. I understand that the insurance industry is not going to get a lot of sympathy. I'm not out here searching or hoping to be a defender of the insurance industry. But what is happening with insurance, a service to our society in a real sense, and a product that our society depends on in order to function, should make us think twice before we pass a bill ignoring the problems. Take the insurance industry within the great State of Alabama, for example. The Prudential Insurance Company, a large, well-established company we all know, had an agent in Alabama. That agent sold an annuity policy to a couple. Nothing unusual there. But the company soon learned that their own agent had greatly overstated the value of this policy. The agent had deceived the couple, which was trying to legitimately plan for its retirement. What did Prudential do? Prudential did the right thing, alerting the couple about the agent's deception, and offering to return all the premiums the couple had paid. The company realized that the couple had been mistreated, and the company took steps to repair all the economic damage that had been done to the couple. But instead, the couple chose to sue the company, and like many of these civil justice cases, this one went to trial by jury. The jury awarded the couple $430,000 in compensatory damages, and then, then a staggering $25 million in punitive damages, $25 million, against a company that tried to right a wrong. I understand the facts of the case. An elderly couple was deceived. They deserved compensation, no one would argue about that. But under what code of right and wrong does a jury decide that $25 million is justice? This is what is going on in the great State of Alabama. I conferred with one confirmed it. During the first 9 months of last year, Alabama juries handed down 11 separate multi-million dollar punitive damage verdicts. Let me quote now from one of our Nation's top legal and criminal experts, professor George Priest of Yale University Law School. He said ``The System is totally out of control in Alabama.'' Now, we understand full well what will transpire. A lot of the trial lawyers' lobbyists will come down here and say ``This is a state issue. The Federal Government has no business passing a national punitive damages cap.'' Tell that to the people who provide services or sell insurance within the great State of Alabama. It is worth noting that the Alabama State Legislative did pass a cap, a $250,000 limit on punitive damages. What happened? In the wake of that decision by the Alabama state legislature, elected judges in that State struck it down. No wonder many attorneys want this left as a State issue. My point is simple, Madam Speaker. If we fail to extend the punitive damage provisions of H.R. 10 to all civil justice cases, then we are fooling ourselves that we have created a far-reaching legal reform within the system. Madam Speaker, it is simply insufficient to bring reform to one corner of the system while blissfully ignoring the outrages going on in every other aspect of civil law. How many more million dollar awards will have to be handed down before we realize our system is out of kilter with reality, and ultimately, with justice? We all want to see wrongdoers held accountable but it is worth noting that accountability means restoring a sense of proportion and responsibility to our entire legal system. I say to my colleagues, Madam Speaker, we are moving in the right direction, but let us not stop before we really get started. Let us work, toward real reform, genuine reform, that will truly touch every American. Undergirding a variety of these questions, whether they deal with our civil system of law, or, really, any other question that comes before this 104th Congress is this simple notion of the law. I believe my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, and the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Christensen, both trained as attorneys, would readily admit this. It is this simple noting that undergirds, really, the entire legal system, if you will, of Western civilization. That is the question of what is reasonable, the test of what a reasonable persons would apply. I think it has been shown with stunning clarity, not only in the context of my remarks but, indeed, as we move now into other questions, as we take a look at regulatory reform, as we take a look at so much that has gone on with our Federal Government, we see that that sense of reasonableness has been, if not completely abandoned, then certainly neglected. Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with you for a revolution that is not radical, but one that is reasonable. I look forward to working together to adopt commonsense legal reform.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, last year the guardians of the old order rammed through the criminal's crime bill. It was a piece of legislation more concerned about the rights of violent criminals than the rights of law-abiding Americans. It was a bill that offered violent criminals and repeat offenders endless appeals and technical loopholes. It was a bill full of phony prevention programs and wasteful pork. It was a bill that said violent criminals are not bad people; instead they are really just misunderstood, and if we all give them a group hug, maybe they will mend their evil ways. Mr. Speaker, criminals do not need a crime bill. The American people do. Crime has taken over America's streets, and Americans want to take those streets back. So we in the new majority offer a citizens crime bill, a bill that actually makes criminals pay for their crimes. We want to put a stop to endless appeals for death row inmates. We have had enough of repeat criminals going free due to legal technicalities. Mr. Speaker, the American people demand a real crime bill, and in this Contract With America they will get it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's crime bill of 1994 was either a masterstroke of genius or it was a joke wrapped around a sham surrounded by a barrel of pork. I'm inclined to agree the latter possibility is closer to the truth. The proponents of last year's crime bill proclaimed from every rooftop that 100,000 police would be put on the streets. What they didn't tell anyone was that local governments had to cough up 25 percent of the cost of fielding these police officers. With most local and State governments cracking under the strain of other Federal mandates, many localities could not afford yet another mandate. Mr. Speaker, we must reform last year's crime bill and help local governments by giving them block grants instead of punishing them with more mandates. Local control and local problem solving from those on the front line combating crime, that is the key, not one-size-fits-all from an idiocracy ensconced on the banks of the Potomac. Mr. Speaker, Americans spoke last November 8. They continue to speak through this Contract With America. We will enact it and we will get tough on crime.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We have done this. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded mandates legislation--we have done this; line-item veto--we have done this; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we are doing this now; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle-income Americans; national security restoration to protect our freedoms; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the Volkmer amendment to H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights. Like the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I have serious concerns about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. On numerous occasions it is my belief, and certainly the headlines have reflected, that the BATF has overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries and trampled on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Clearly, we must seriously examine the reckless actions of this agency and work to eliminate the BATF by consolidating its legitimate functions with other agencies. Congress needs to thoroughly review every aspect of the agency's operation and its inefficiencies. In the interim, strong congressional oversight and congressional control over BATF's budget is the best way to influence BATF management and decisionmaking and safeguard the rights of America's gun owners. Passage of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not a solution to the problems with the BATF. Congress has a responsibility to maintain strict oversight of this agency. Creating an exemption for the BATF from the reform of this exclusionary rule will not stop the BATF from committing unreasonable searches. It will make it easier for hardened criminals to walk on a technicality. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the more we delve into President Clinton's budget, the more we will find in it that we like and can support. As we heard already this morning, this budget will not be dead on arrival. If the President has some good ideas that we can support while being consistent with our goal of smaller, less costly government, we will gladly incorporate some of his ideas into the budget. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that upon initial examination the President's budget proposal is not very bold. In fact, it merely treads water. Mr. Clinton constantly reminds us that he is the first President in memory to cut the deficit 3 years in a row. Well, that is a start, but it is not an end in itself. Under the President's own projections, the budget begins its upward path again next year. We Republicans are committed to balancing the budget by the year 2002. If the President wants to help us, fine. But if he wants to remain wedded to the politics of the past, then we will act alone. However, one way or the other, rest assured, we will get the job done.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, that sound you hear from the other side of the aisle is the last drumbeat of the old order. Our liberal friends continue to march to the beat of Government mandates, Government spending, and Government taxing. That is why they are so quick to endorse an increase in the minimum wage, so quick to oppose the balanced budget amendment, so desperate in their opposition to the line-item veto. But the American people are marching to the beat of a different drummer. They look to the future and to us for new solutions, smaller Government and fewer mandates. The American people want the private sector to be able to create jobs that pay more than just the minimum wage. They want a future free of nonsensical, repetitive, and unproductive regulations. And that is why the people voted against liberal Democrats in overwhelming numbers last November. Mr. Speaker, the tired, old drumbeat of bigger Government, bigger taxes, and bigger spending goes on. Thankfully, the American people have stopped listening. They have started reading the ``Contract With America,'' soon to be No. 1 on the best seller list and the No. 1 priority of this New Republican Congress.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we are going to give Ronald Reagan a great present for his birthday on Monday, and in the process, we will also be giving a great gift to the American people, because we are finally going to pass a line-item veto, an idea that Ronald Reagan championed more than anyone else. As usual, he was way ahead of his time. Say goodbye to studies on cow flatulence, say goodbye to Belgian endive research, and say goodbye to research on the sex lives of certain insects. Say hello to responsible government and accountability. If only the former majority had given Mr. Reagan the line-item veto in the first place, we might not be in this deficit mess. He could have used it to cut out some of the $219 billion in additional spending that the guardians of the old order added to his budget requests. But it is better late than never. Happy birthday, President Reagan, and this is your victory, and it is a victory for us all.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for yielding time to me. It is a distinct honor to come to the Congress with the gentlewoman and other like-minded reformers of this institution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I see my good friend from New Mexico, who authored this piece, because quite correctly of the concern of his constituents. And certainly while there are some matters of contention within the Committee on Resources, this is not one of them. I think it is exemplary that the gentleman from New Mexico brings forth this legislation, and I certainly rise to champion his cause and those of his constituents and look forward to some reciprocation down the line with other bills of regional interest that we may share. I also look forward to full and open discussion in this House, in this people's House, on matters where perhaps we do not see eye to eye, for that is the purpose of this institution, to debate the questions of the day. And when we have common agreement, we should champion those moments as well. This is one such occasion, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand in strong support of this piece of legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, from the home office back in Scottsdale, AZ, the top 10 reasons liberal Democrats oppose our Contract With America: No. 10: Ideas? We don't need your stinking ideas. No. 9: Book envy. No. 8: Would you Republicans shut up? We are watching the O.J. trial. No. 7: Al Gore, what a guy! No. 6: `Tis better to have taxed and lost than never to have taxed at all. No. 5: Never make a promise you might have to keep. No. 4: Would rather follow the P.T. Barnum maxim, ``Never give the taxpayer an even break.'' No. 3: Profits? What are profits? Are they evil? No. 2: Hey, what happened? We thought the status quo was pretty good. And the No. 1 reason Democrats oppose our Contract With America: Republicans, with our contract, are trying to change this Congress. Democrats would rather change the subject.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states, on the first day of Congress, a Republican house will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else, cut one- third of committee staff, and cut the congressional budget. We have done that. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded mandates legislation; line-item veto; a new crime bill to stop violent criminals; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for families to lift government's burden from middle-income Americans; national security restoration to protect our freedoms; Senior Citizens; Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulation reforms; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the balanced budget amendment passed the House yesterday. We have demonstrated to the people that we have heard their concerns, and the Republican controlled Congress will continue to work to keep our promises with them by enacting the rest of the Contract With America. But I have to say I am disappointed that the Barton language, which provided a protection to the taxpayers by preventing tax increases without a three-fifths majority vote, did not pass. In fact, even though 97 percent of Republicans voted for this language, less than 20 percent of the Democrats voted for it. I guess it is hard for the Democrats to accept that the days of tax and tax and spend and spend are over. I want to assure the hard working taxpayers in our country that the fight is not over. We will spend the next year building support for a tax limitation amendment and bring it back to the floor for a vote. I am confident that with hard work, we will win. In the meantime, let us continue to pass the rest of the Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union Address Tuesday, President Clinton said the American people were engaged in a shouting match. This observation parallels the liberal media's assertion that the American people are angry at each other. This is light years from the truth. Americans are not angry and they are certainly not shouting at each other. Mr. Speaker, if the American people are shouting at anybody, they are shouting at the Federal Government. More precisely, they are sickened at the level of irresponsible spending, the bloated and inefficient bureaucracies and the constant drumbeat for more taxes. The other night President Clinton treated us to an interesting speech and I am glad to see that he supports many of the ideas Republicans have been talking about for years. But once again I call on the President and my friends on the other side of the aisle to put aside the rhetoric and take action. This week the President and this Congress have an opportunity to restore faith with the American people and put our financial priorities in order. We must pass the balanced budget amendment and put an end to the disgrace of deficit spending. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the American people are not shouting at each other. They are shouting at us.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time and for introducing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from the other side of the aisle. One of the previous speakers was quite correct to point out that before there was this contract there was enacted a solemn contract with the American people that we call Social Security. And I rise in strong support of the Flanagan resolution. In contrast with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I cannot classify this as a fig leaf, for I remember, though I was not a Member of this body, in the 103d Congress, I remember a very clear record in that Congress, when the former majority rose and struck down benefits for seniors and taxed seniors' benefits, and strove to cut Medicare. Friends, that is the real history of what has transpired, and this resolution serves to guide us always, to make sure that we understand the solemn commitment of the intergenerational contract with this Nation's seniors. Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. We saw terrible actions in the last Congress. This Congress has a strong commitment to preserve the rights of seniors.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, can anyone seriously tell me what was different in last night's State of the Union Address from what the President has done in his previous two addresses, I mean besides the fact that it was longer? There is nothing wrong with the President's words; it is not the President's speeches that have put him in the fix he is in, it is his actions, and the quicker the President figures that out the better off we all will be. The President says he wants less Federal spending and a smaller, more efficient Government. If that is the case, I hope he supports the tax limitation balanced budget amendment that we will vote on today. The President says he wants to reduce unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. If that is the case, he should tell our Democrat colleagues to stop these obstructionist tactics we have seen that have stalled the reform bill that we have been working on all week. The President says he wants to end welfare as we know it. If that is the case, then he should support the Republican contract bill which will fundamentally change the role of welfare in our society. But the President probably will not do that, and next year he will come back with a speech that will sound familiar to us all.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend President Clinton said the Democrats and Republicans should be committed to tackling problems larger than our partisan squabbles. I agree. The new Congress should be committed to balancing the budget, ending crime, and reforming Government. But the sad fact is the rhetoric on that side of the aisle and the actions that follow rarely line up. While Democrats may talk about putting aside partisanship, they seem obsessed by ghost historians, book deals and personal attacks. Despite this partisan maneuvering, Republicans remain committed to the promises we made to the American people. We will stop forcing the States to pay for policies we implement and we will transform the culture of Washington by passing the balanced budget amendment. It should be quite obvious to all that Republicans want to change this Congress and our friends on the other side of the aisle just wanted to change the subject.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the arguments by the keepers of the old order with budget amendment. Some point out that even when it comes to treaties in the other body, a super majority is required there, but that is a very, very special case. Taking into account that treaties are quite properly the purview of the other body, let me ask this, Mr. Speaker: What is a treaty, after all, if not a compact or a contract? I humbly propose that our Contract With America is in essence a peace treaty with the hard-working, taxpaying men and women of this country, saying that a super majority should be required to increase taxes. Let us move forward on the balanced budget amendment and enact the Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I must rise and take exception to an article I read in one of this Nation's leading weekly magazines where some of the mentality that has handcuffed us for the last 40 years continues to be propagated throughout the land. Now, one of the leading news magazines in this country, we talk about the dangers of what it phrased as hyper-democracy. The notion that somehow letters to the editor and appearing on talk radio and sending us faxes and sending us E-mail, somehow it is just too mind boggling; somehow it will muddy the water and somehow it will take America down the wrong road. Mr. Speaker, how on Earth can it be that a government which derives its powers from the consent of the governed can ever be led astray by the input of the governed? Mr. Speaker, to the people of America, we thank you for the mandate of November 8 and we ask the people of America to stay in tune, stay in touch, and stay on top of this revolution.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I would like to note what a personal thrill and high honor it is to stand alongside my friend and colleague from Arizona. We live in neighboring districts, and our people share similar thoughts and values. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have to remember was echoed in a previous remark by my good friend, the gentleman from Maine. It is that we are really not actively involved here in reinventing Government as much as we are involved in remembering what made this Government great, and what made it the last, best hope of mankind. Though we may use the rhetoric of revolution, and indeed, after 40 years of maintaining an old order, it may seem revolutionary, Mr. Speaker, what we advocate is really not radical. Instead, it is reasonable. In the remarks we have heard from the other side throughout the 104th Congress, there seems to be an important ingredient missing. It is this realization. The money talked about and the funds appropriated and the horror stories of alleged losses and decreases in funding that Members on the other side of the aisle would point to fails to understand this basic point. It is not the Federal Government's money. It is money that rightfully belongs in the wallets and the purses of the citizens of the United States. They know best how to spend their hard-earned money. They know best how to care for their families. One size does not fit all. Mr. Speaker, the answer is not found in government, but in ourselves.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, 81 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment, but a few folks are trying to put on the brakes. They say they will not support a balanced budget amendment unless they know exactly how we are going to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, when President Kennedy stood at this podium behind me here and said we needed to put a man on the Moon, Americans did not demand at the outset to know the type of launching pad or rocket that was going to be used. We set the goal first; then methods for achieving that goal evolved. The truth is some in this Chamber do not want Congress to balance the budget and have to live with the same kind of fiscal discipline that every family in America experiences every day. They want to continue runaway spending while our constituents are balancing heir checkbooks and working hard to make ends meet. The American people have told us with a resounding voice they want us to balance the budget. For the sake of all our children, let us provide the leadership once and for all to solve this problem. Where there is a will, there is a way. We will find a way to balance the budget. What we need is the will now to honor our Contract With America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today I announced my candidacy to represent the Sixth District of Arizona. During these past 365 days, I have listened and learned a lot traveling the width and breadth of the district that in square mileage is the size of the State of Tennessee. One recurring and overwhelming sentiment shared by my constituents is an absolute repudiation of unfunded Federal mandates. In fact, one mayor in my district has coined an interesting term for the entire process of oppressive overregulation--he now calls the Federal bureaucracy the idiocracy. It is estimated that this idiocracy will cost State and local governments nearly $16 billion in 1995 alone. That comes at the expense of my children's future, the prosperity of the hard-working men and women of my district, and commonsense governance. During these next 99 days, we have a historic opportunity to restore--the Jeffersonian ideal of a limited and frugal federal Government as we enact our Contract With America. Let us work together to dismantle the idiocracy.